Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 12
|
|
- Millicent Campbell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:06-CV-569-R TIMOTHY LANDIS PLAINTIFF v. PINNACLE EYE CARE, LLC, d/b/a VISION FIRST; JOHN M. SCHMITT; LOUISVILLE OPTOMETRIC CENTERS III, PSC, Successor-in-Interest to LOUISVILLE OPTOMETRIC CENTERS II, INC.; and ROD RALLO DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants moved the Court to stay this matter and order that it be resolved through arbitration. (Docket # 9). The Plaintiff responded. (Docket # 10). Defendants replied in support of their Motion. (Docket # 11). The Defendants Motion to Stay is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Defendants claim that Plaintiff signed an Employment Agreement which bound him to arbitrate this dispute, making this Court an improper forum for Plaintiff s claims at this time. Plaintiff argues that the arbitration clause is not applicable to his claims in this matter. In 1995, Defendant Louisville Optometric Center II ( LOC II ) hired Plaintiff as an optometrist. At his hiring, Plaintiff signed an Employment Agreement with LOC II. In Article VII of the Employment Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to resolve any controversy, dispute or disagreements arising out of or relating to [the] Agreement through negotiation or mandated arbitration governed by the American Arbitration Association. In 1999, LOC II was succeeded by Louisville Optometric Center III ( LOC III ). At this time, Plaintiff executed an almost identical
2 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 12 Employment Agreement, changing only his employer s name and not his obligations. In 2002, Plaintiff s contract was again amended. Only the compensation portion of the contract was changed, and Article VII remained intact. Plaintiff also claims that several of the Defendants are not parties to the Employment Agreements which contain the arbitration clause and, therefore, that Plaintiff cannot be obligated to arbitrate complaints against those Defendants. It is clear that, until his resignation in October, 2006, Plaintiff was employed and paid by LOC II or LOC III (referred to generally as LOC ). In fact, his Employment Agreement states that Plaintiff s services as an optometrist shall be exclusive to LOC. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he was ever employed or compensated by any other Defendants in this matter. Rod Rallo ( Rallo ) was employed as LOC s primary doctor of optometry throughout the events relevant to this matter. John Schmitt ( Schmitt ) is also an LOC employee, functioning as a manager. In 1998, LOC became affiliated with NovaMed Eye Care Management, LLC, ( NovaMed ) and American Eye Institute, PC. In 2002, Rallo chose to end his management association with NovaMed and form a new management company, Pinnacle EyeCare, LLC ( Pinnacle ). Rallo and Schmitt own Pinnacle management company. Since 2002, Rallo has directed LOC offices under the management of Pinnacle. These offices do business under the name VisionFirst, which is not registered as a separate business entity. In April, 2004, Plaintiff was ordered to report for duty in Afghanistan as a member of the Indiana National Guard. Prior to his deployment, Plaintiff claims that Schmitt negotiated Plaintiff s employment upon his return on behalf of VisionFirst. The Employment Agreement was not amended and does not include these terms. Plaintiff provides no written proof of these 2
3 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 12 terms. Plaintiff does not assert that he negotiated any additional terms with Pinnacle, Rallo, or LOC. Furthermore, Section 8.7 of Plaintiff s Employment Agreement with LOC states that the Employment Agreement supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings or negotiations of the parties. This Agreement shall not be modified, amended or supplemented except in a written instrument executed by both parties. Plaintiff claims that his unwritten agreement with VisionFirst and Schmitt contained the following terms: during Plaintiff s deployment, VisionFirst would preserve Plaintiff s Hodgenville practice by hiring additional doctors to attend Plaintiff s patients; VisionFirst would deduct three percent of the gross earnings of the Hodgenville office from Plaintiff s overdraw debt to LOC when he returned; and VisionFirst would make Plaintiff s last draw payment on May 10, Plaintiff claims that these terms were separate from his Employment Agreement with LOC and that they were breached. Defendants suggest that these claims are related to Plaintiff s employment, and thus his Employment Agreement, with LOC and are, therefore, subject to mandatory arbitration. Plaintiff argues that these claims are not within the purview of the Employment Agreement or the Employment Agreement s Arbitration clause. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the United Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ( USERRA ). USERRA protects returning military personnel from being stripped of the employment rights and benefits they would have enjoyed had they not been deployed to serve their country. Plaintiff posits that the Defendants demoted him upon his honorable discharge from the military. According to Plaintiff, Schmitt made it clear that Plaintiff s deployment had caused his demotion and any further involvement with the military would deprive Plaintiff of further career opportunities. 3
4 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 4 of 12 Plaintiff seeks to enforce Kentucky Revised Statute According to Plaintiff, Schmitt and VisionFirst (as a legal entity), are practicing optometry without a license. Plaintiff suggests that the imposition of management policies upon the optometrists employed by LOC constitute the practice of optometry. It is uncontested that Schmitt and VisionFirst are not licensed to practice optometry. Plaintiff contends that he may enforce this statute because Schmitt s and VisionFirst s alleged practice of optometry has caused him damages. Additionally, Plaintiff makes claims of age and gender discrimination as well as a violation of 5 U.S.C. 6323, which entitles an employee on active duty with a uniformed service to leave without loss in pay. STANDARD The Court must consider several issues in determining whether Plaintiff s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. First, the Court must decide whether USERRA preempts any contractual obligation to arbitrate. If not, then the Court must decide which claims Plaintiff makes are properly arbitrated under the terms of the Employment Agreement. If the Plaintiff s claims are a proper subject for arbitration, then the Court must examine whether some Defendants were not parties to the Employment Agreement and cannot demand arbitration of Plaintiff s claims against them. Plaintiff claims that USERRA preempts the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement. Plaintiff cites language in USERRA stating (a) Nothing in this chapter shall supersede, nullify or diminish any Federal or State law (including any local law or ordinance), contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that establishes a right or benefit that is more beneficial to, or is in addition to, a right or benefit provided for such person in this chapter. (b) This chapter supersedes any State law (including any local law or 4
5 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 5 of 12 ordinance), contract agreement, policy, plan practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit. 38 U.S.C. 4302(b) (2006). According to Plaintiff, the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement limits Plaintiff s rights to pursue his claims and eliminates his Seventh Amendment right to pursue his claims in a federal court and, therefore, is preempted by the terms of USERRA. The Supreme Court has charged federal courts to rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate, and held that statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA, Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226; 107 S.Ct. 2332; 96 L.Ed. 2d 185 (1987); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, S.Ct. 1647, 1652, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991). The Supreme Court has explicitly approved enforcing arbitration agreements to settle matters in the employment and discrimination contexts. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123; 121 S.Ct. 1302; 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001). The Supreme Court has set forth a bipartite test for analyzing whether an arbitration agreement covers statutory claims. The Court must decide whether the statutory issues are properly within the purview of the arbitration agreement. The Court must also decide whether any external legal constraints prohibit the enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628; 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3355; 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). Plaintiff claims that USERRA preempts the arbitration clause. Therefore, the Court first considers whether the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement is enforceable upon Plaintiff s claims under USERRA. The Supreme Court held that, while questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a 5
6 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 6 of 12 healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration, statutory issues may not be subject to arbitration if Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies at issue. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26. If Congress intends to preclude arbitration, it will be discoverable in the text of the [statute], its legislative history, or an inherent conflict between arbitration and the [statute s] underlying purposes. Id. ANALYSIS I. Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements Relating to USERRA Claims In support of his position, Plaintiff cites Breletic v. Caci, Inc.-Federal. 413 F.Supp.2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2006). See also Lopez v. Dillard s, Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1247 (D. Kansas 2005). The Court in Breletic noted that there was no language in Title 38, United States Code, Section 4301, that indicates Congress intended to prohibit a person in the armed forces from waiving his or her right to a judicial forum for the vindication of those rights created by the USERRA. Id. at However, the Court noted the language of Title 38, United States Code, Section 4302(b) which stated: This chapter supersedes any... contract 1 [or] agreement... that reduces, limits or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit. The Court in Breletic found that the imposition of arbitration on employment matters abrogates... the rights provided by USERRA to pursue claims in federal court by establishing a prerequisite of arbitration before pursuing those rights. Breletic, 413 F.Supp.2d at The Breletic Court reasoned that, while an arbitration agreement does not 1 [T]he FAA placed arbitration agreements on an even footing with all other contracts. Breletic, 413 F.Supp. 2d at 1336 (quoting Anders v. Hometown Mortgage Svcs., Inc., 346 F.3d 1024, 1032 (11th Cir. 2003)). 6
7 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 7 of 12 require a person to relinquish any substantive rights, it does relinquish the signor s procedural rights to bring the action in any state in which the signor maintains a place of business, without fees or court costs being taxed. Id. In that case, Breletic was obligated under the arbitration agreement to settle his suit in Virginia and pay the arbitration fees. The Breletic Court also noted the House Report on USERRA Section 4302, which states: This section would reaffirm that additional resort to mechanisms such as grievance procedures or arbitration or similar administrative appeals is not required. It is the Committee s intent that even if a person protected under the Act resorts to arbitration, any arbitration decision shall not be binding as a matter of law... An express waiver of future statutory rights, such as one that an employer might wish to require as a condition of employment, would be contrary to the public policy embodied in the Committee bill and would be void. H.R. Rep. No (1994), as reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N Based on both the statutory language and the House Report, the Breletic Court found that USERRA was intended to preempt any agreements to arbitrate and all agreements to arbitrate issues under USERRA are void. Breletic, 413 F.Supp. 2d Defendants advocate the rule in Garrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.: that USERRA does not preempt the terms of an Employment Agreement. The Court in Garrett addressed the language in USERRA Section 4302, but ultimately held that it is not a clear expression of Congressional intent concerning the arbitration of servicemembers employment disputes. Garrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 449 F.3d 672, 677 (5th Cir. 2006). [B]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial forum. Id. (quoting Mitsubishi, 473 U.S. at ). The Garrett Court also noted that, in other statutory contexts such as RICO, the Sherman Act, and the Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934, courts held 7
8 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 8 of 12 that mandatory arbitration agreements did not abrogate the substantive rights under the statutes. The Fifth Circuit held that [w]hen properly interpreted, 4302(b) can be harmonized with the FAA and mandatory arbitration. Id. The Garrett Court noted that the rights and purposes of USERRA are substantive, not procedural, and that [a]n exclusive judicial forum is not a right provided by Chapter 43 of the USERRA. Id. at 678. The Fifth Circuit held that [a]n agreement to arbitrate under the FAA is effectively a forum selection clause, not a waiver of substantive statutory protections and benefits. Id. (internal citations omitted). Citing the Supreme Court s preference to enforce arbitration agreements when they do not interfere with the substantive rights provided by statutes, the Court held that arbitration agreements relating to USERRA claims are enforceable. Id. The Garrett Court also held there was no evidence that an arbitration was an insufficient forum to handle the sort of claims relating to the rights of military personnel filed under USERRA. Id. at 681. In fact, as the Court in Garrett notes, USERRA provides for special nonjudicial resolution of USERRA claims for federal workers - a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board. This shows that the legislative intent of the statute was not to reserve resolution of USERRA claims for judicial proceedings. Id. at 679 (citing 43 U.S.C and Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 28). Moreover, the Fifth Circuit held that the language in the House Report relied on in Breletic for announcing legislative intent is not necessary to interpret Section Instead, the Fifth Circuit notes, legislative hearings should only be relied on to interpret ambiguous statutes, and Section 4302 is not ambiguous in its allowance of arbitral resolution on its face. Id. at 679 (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Servs. Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 162 L.Ed. 2d 502, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2626 (2005)). Furthermore, the Court noted that if interpretation of 8
9 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 9 of 12 Section 4302 was necessary, the totality of the legislative history showed an intent only to prohibit the limiting of USERRA s substantive rights by union contracts and collective bargaining agreements, not arbitration agreements between an employer and individual employee. 2 Id. at 680. While the Court is not bound by either of these cases, the Court follows the logic of the Fifth Circuit as set out in Garrett. While the legislative history makes clear that the substantive rights and ability to litigate them should not be diminished by contractual agreements, the legislature did not insert procedural requirements into its definition of claims under USERRA. For this reason, the Court must grant the stay requested as to any claims subject to arbitration. II. Scope of the Arbitration Agreement Since the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement is enforceable, the Court must determine which of Plaintiff s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration under the terms of the agreement. In other words, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff s claims arise out of or relate to the Employment Agreement. Plaintiff first argues that his claims arise out of separate terms regarding his employment after deployment which were negotiated outside of the Employment Agreement. Plaintiff continued his employment relationship with LOC before and after his deployment. Plaintiff does not directly claim that he was employed as an optometrist by another business entity, and, indeed, to do so would be in violation of the Employment Agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff s claims against his employer must logically relate to his 2 The Garrett Court also noted that courts should not rely on cases involving collective bargaining arbitration as a basis for avoiding arbitration of statutory claims under the FAA. Id. (citing Carter v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 362 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2004)). 9
10 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 10 of 12 employment relationship with LOC, and not a separate employment relationship with VisionFirst or Schmitt. Next, Plaintiff suggests that if his claims do arise out of his employment with LOC, they do not relate to the Employment Agreement containing the valid arbitration clause. Rather, Plaintiff argues that his claims relate to his employer s breach of promises made in a separate agreement just before Plaintiff s deployment. Plaintiff presents no written evidence of Schmitt s alleged promises on behalf of VisionFirst. According to the Employment Agreement, all binding agreements about Plaintiff s employment must be in writing to supplement the terms of the Employment Agreement. Plaintiff has not shown any written amendments to the Employment Agreement. Therefore, these additional claims cannot survive. 3 All remaining claims relate to Plaintiff s claim that Defendants deviated from the Employment Agreement in demoting Plaintiff after his service in the military. These claims clearly relate to Defendants responsibilities arising out of the Employment Agreement and are therefore within the purview of the arbitration clause. Plaintiff then claims that even if he is bound to arbitrate his claims against his employer, LOC, he is not bound to arbitrate claims against the other Defendants since they were not parties to the Employment Agreement. It is important to note that Plaintiff sues Rallo, Schmitt, and 3 Even if Plaintiff s claims based on his negotiations with Schmitt on behalf of VisionFirst could survive independently from his Employment Agreement with LOC, they would still be arbitrable. The Employment Agreement s arbitration clause mandates arbitration for all issues arising out of or relating to the Employment Agreement. Plaintiff s claims all relate to his employment as an optometrist for a branch of LOC called VisionFirst and managed by Schmitt. Therefore, any claims regarding promises made by VisionFirst and Schmitt relating to the terms of his future employment with LOC still relate to the Employment Agreement, establishing Plaintiff s employment as a whole. 10
11 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 11 of 12 Pinnacle in their capacities as managers of LOC offices. His USERRA claims against these defendants necessarily relate to his employment with LOC, since LOC was contractually established to be his only employer and USERRA authorizes claims by an employee against an employer. Therefore, these remaining claims are in relation to Plaintiff s employment and are subject to arbitration. III. Pendent Jurisdiction Plaintiff asserts claims against VisionFirst and Schmitt in Count III of his Complaint for practicing without a license. While these claims do not necessarily relate to his employment and fall under the ambit of claims related to his Employment Agreement, Plaintiff concedes this Court only has pendent jurisdiction over these claims. The Court has pendent jurisdiction where (1) the claims are filed in federal court and the Court has jurisdiction over the claims; (2) the state and federal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact ; and (3) the claims are such as would ordinarily be adjudicated in one proceeding. See Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Gaff v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 814 F.2d 311, 319 (6th Cir. 1987); Transcontinental Leasing, Inc. v. Michigan Nat l Bank, 738 F.2d 163, 165 (6th Cir. 1984). Because the Court has determined that it does not currently have jurisdiction of the related federal claims in this matter due to the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement, there is no proper claim in federal court to which to attach the state claims. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendants Motion to Stay pending arbitration 11
12 Case 3:06-cv TBR Document 12 Filed 09/06/2007 Page 12 of 12 pursuant to the Employment Agreement. An appropriate Order shall follow. 12
JURY WAIVERS AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
JURY WAIVERS AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS David H. Peck Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 357-9606 (513) 730-1534 (pager) peck@taftlaw.com JURY
More informationArbitration Provisions in Employment Contract May Be Under Fire
Labor and Employment Law Notes Arbitration Provisions in Employment Contract May Be Under Fire The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in the case of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C.
More informationFAA and the USERRA: Pro-Arbitration Policies Can Undermine Federal Protection of Military Personnel
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2007 Issue 1 Article 20 2007 FAA and the USERRA: Pro-Arbitration Policies Can Undermine Federal Protection of Military Personnel Laura Bettenhausen Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division KIM J. BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:10CV39-JAG DILLARD S, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationCase 1:10-cv DPW Document 27 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:10-cv-10113-DPW Document 27 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PAUL PEZZA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 10-10113-DPW INVESTORS CAPITAL
More informationCLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM
CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM Claim Number : A10005-0004 Claimant : O'Briens Response Management OOPS Type of Claimant : OSRO Type of Claim : Removal Costs Claim Manager : Amount Requested : $242,366.26
More informationCase 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-000-spl Document Filed 0// Page of William R. Mettler, Esq. S. Price Road Chandler, Arizona Arizona State Bar No. 00 (0 0-0 wrmettler@wrmettlerlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Zenith Financial
More informationMagnuson-Moss Warranty Act v. the Federal Arbitration Act The Makings for a Battle
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act v. the Federal Arbitration Act The Makings for a Battle I. INTRODUCTION By Nathan White* In 1975 Congress passed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement
More informationThe Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable Under the Federal Arbitration Act
Arbitration Law Review Volume 4 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 24 7-1-2012 The Battle Over Class Action: Second Circuit Holds that Class Action Waiver for Antitrust Actions Unenforceable
More informationArbitration Agreements between Employers and Employees: The Sixth Circuit Says the EEOC Is Not Bound - EEOC v. Frank's Nursery & (and) Crafts, Inc.
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2000 Issue 1 Article 17 2000 Arbitration Agreements between Employers and Employees: The Sixth Circuit Says the EEOC Is Not Bound - EEOC v. Frank's Nursery & (and)
More informationCase 3:17-cv MPS Document 28 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:17-cv-01586-MPS Document 28 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ASHLEY BROOK SMITH, Plaintiff, No. 3:17-CV-1586-MPS v. JRK RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. - IN THE Supreme Court of the United States KEVIN ZIOBER, v. BLB RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
More informationIFC INTERCONSULT, AG v. SAFEGUARD INTERN. PARTNERS, 356 F. Supp. 2d US: Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2005
IFC INTERCONSULT, AG v. SAFEGUARD INTERN. PARTNERS, 356 F. Supp. 2d 503 - US: Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2005 356 F.Supp.2d 503 (2005) In the Matter of the Arbitration between IFC INTERCONSULT, AG, Petitioner/Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:16-cv L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-02430-L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHEBA COWSETTE, Plaintiff, V. No. 3:16-cv-2430-L FEDERAL
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion Avoiding
More informationThe Supreme Court will shortly be considering
Arbitration at a Cross Road: Will the Supreme Court Hold the Federal Arbitration Act Trumps Federal Labor Laws? By John Jay Range and Bryan Cleveland The Supreme Court will shortly be considering three
More informationCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN DISCRIMINATION CASES: FORUM SHOPPING THEIR WAY INTO A NEW YORK DISTRICT COURT NEAR YOU!
Brigham Young University Hawaii From the SelectedWorks of George Klidonas September 24, 2009 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN DISCRIMINATION CASES: FORUM SHOPPING THEIR WAY INTO A NEW YORK DISTRICT
More informationCase 0:13-cv JIC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:13-cv-60066-JIC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-60066-CIV-COHN-SELTZER ABRAHAM INETIANBOR Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:17-cv NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-00422-NT Document 17 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE EMMA CEDER, V. Plaintiff, SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant. Docket
More informationCase 1:16-cv RP Document 13 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:16-cv-00044-RP Document 13 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION BECKY GOAD, Plaintiff, V. 1-16-CV-044 RP ST. DAVID S HEALTHCARE
More informationCase 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 167
Case 2:15-cv-01650-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 167 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MISTY ELLISON, LAWANNA LACEY & GARRETT
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL30934 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Federal Arbitration Act: Background and Recent Developments Updated August 15, 2003 Jon O. Shimabukuro Legislative Attorney American
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. arbitrable. Concluding that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide this issue, the court
Case 3:16-cv-00264-D Document 41 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID 623 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION A & C DISCOUNT PHARMACY, L.L.C. d/b/a MEDCORE
More informationMandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims: A New Approach - Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1996 Issue 1 Article 15 1996 Mandatory Arbitration of Title VII Claims: A New Approach - Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lai Catherine Chatman Follow this and
More informationMILES E. LOCKER LOCKER FOLBERG LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 422 San Francisco, California (415)
MILES E. LOCKER LOCKER FOLBERG LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 422 San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 962-1626 mlocker@lockerfolberg.com Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice and the Honorable Associate
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189
Case: 1:16-cv-07054 Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMUEL LIT, Plaintiff, v. No. 16 C 7054 Judge
More informationCase 4:13-cv TSH Document 20 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 4:13-cv-40067-TSH Document 20 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MELISSA CYGANIEWICZ, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 13-40067-TSH SALLIE MAE, INC., Defendant.
More informationCase 1:10-cv UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:10-cv-20296-UU Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SIVKUMAR SIVANANDI, Case No. 10-20296-CIV-UNGARO v. Plaintiff,
More informationMarc L. Silverman, for appellant. William H. Roth, for respondent Brady. At issue is whether petitioner met her burden of
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationAlternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Context
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Context By Joshua M. Javits Special to the national law journal During the last year and half, the legal environment surrounding the use of alternative
More information14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett I. INTRODUCTION 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett was recently decided by the United States Supreme Court.1 The fundamental question presented therein was whether
More informationCase 3:16-cv JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:16-cv-01944-JCH Document 20 Filed 04/13/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES INC., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 3:16-CV-1944 (JCH) v. : :
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS ZABOROWSKI; VANESSA BALDINI; KIM DALE; NANCY PADDOCK; MARIA
More informationKoons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach* I. INTRODUCTION In Koons Ford of Baltimore, Inc. v. Lobach, Maryland's highest court was asked to use the tools of statutory interpretation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Verizon Wireless Services
CARLO MAGNO, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, CASE NO. C- ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.
More informationI. Alternative Dispute Resolution
I. Alternative Dispute Resolution John Jay Range A. Introduction... 1 B. Using Arbitration Agreements to Preclude Access to Class Action Litigation... 4 C. The NLRB Rules Waivers of Class Arbitration Constitute
More informationANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT ARBITRATION IN BANKRUPTCY. by Corali Lopez-Castro 1 Mindy Y. Kubs
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT ARBITRATION IN BANKRUPTCY by Corali Lopez-Castro 1 Mindy Y. Kubs 1. Does a Bankruptcy Court have discretion to deny enforcement of a contractual arbitration provision? Answer:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW 3 rd ANNUAL CLE CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 5, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. Pyett v.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW 3 rd ANNUAL CLE CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 5, 2009 WASHINGTON, D.C. Pyett v. 14 Penn Plaza Kathleen Phair Barnard Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
CASE 0:17-cv-05009-JRT-FLN Document 123 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC., v. Plaintiff, A.W. COMPANIES, INC., ALLAN K. BROWN, WENDY
More informationMarie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp. I. INTRODUCTION The First Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 1 regarding the division of labor between
More informationCase 3:09-cv JPG-PMF Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:09-cv-00255-JPG-PMF Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 1 of 7 DORIS J. MASTERS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
More informationNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MURPHY OIL USA, INC.: A TEST OF MIGHT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MURPHY OIL USA, INC.: A TEST OF MIGHT ELIZABETH STOREY* INTRODUCTION National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 1 presents a conflict between two long-standing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CHAMBLISS v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS INC. Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION STACEY CHAMBLISS, vs. Plaintiff, DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a THE OLIVE GARDEN,
More informationCase 1:07-cv UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:07-cv-23040-UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 07-23040-CIV-UNGARO NICOLAE DANIEL VACARU, vs. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:18-cv LMA-KWR Document 21 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. VERSUS No.
Case 2:18-cv-02804-LMA-KWR Document 21 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THE MCDONNEL GROUP LLC CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 18-2804 CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
More information336 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2011), 2010-SC MR, Hathaway v. Eckerle Page S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2011) Velessa HATHAWAY, Appellant, v. Audra J.
336 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2011), 2010-SC-000457-MR, Hathaway v. Eckerle Page 83 336 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. 2011) Velessa HATHAWAY, Appellant, v. Audra J. ECKERLE (Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court), Appellee. and Commonwealth
More informationBetter to Have Tried and Failed than Never to Have Tried Mediation at All: Implications of Mandatory Mediation in Fisher v. GE Medical Systems
Central Michigan University From the SelectedWorks of Adam Epstein 2004 Better to Have Tried and Failed than Never to Have Tried Mediation at All: Implications of Mandatory Mediation in Fisher v. GE Medical
More informationConsumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Consumer Class Action Waivers Post-Concepcion Law360,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-01180-D Document 25 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ASHLEY SLATTEN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-15-1180-D
More informationPRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-3356 ALISSA MOON; YASMEEN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BREATHLESS INC, a/k/a Vision Food
More informationDISCUSSION. Page Md. LEXIS 115, *7
2007 Md. LEXIS 115, *7 Page 4 [*8l DISCUSSION Koons Ford contends that under the FAA, arbitration agreements are enforceable absent a showing that Congress intended to override the FAA by precluding binding
More informationFuture of Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, The
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2014 Issue 1 Article 8 2014 Future of Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, The Marcy Greenwade Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr
More informationCase 7:15-cv VB Document 16 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 18 : : : : : : : : : :
Case 715-cv-03311-VB Document 16 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x In re NYREE BELTON,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT WINCHESTER MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT WINCHESTER DAVID HARRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:14-CV-0046 ) Phillips/Lee TD AMERITRADE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant
More informationPage 1 of 6. Page 1. (Cite as: 287 F.Supp.2d 1229)
Page 1 of 6 Page 1 Motions, Pleadings and Filings United States District Court, S.D. California. Nelson MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. John Hine PONTIAC, and Does 1-30 inclusive, Defendants. No. 03CVI007IEG(POR).
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRETT DANIELS and BRETT DANIELS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-CV-1334 SIMON PAINTER, TIMOTHY LAWSON, INTERNATIONAL SPECIAL ATTRACTIONS,
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D.R. HORTON, INC. and NLRB Case No. 12-CA-25764 MICHAEL CUDA, an individual BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL,
More informationJournal of Dispute Resolution
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1995 Issue 2 Article 4 1995 Mandatory Arbitration and Title VII: Can Employees Ever See Their Rights Vindicated through Statutory Causes of Action - Metz v. Merrill
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. -cv-0-blf 0 ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et al., v. Plaintiffs, INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER ()
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 03/21/ (Argued: November 7, 2012 Decided: March 21, 2013) Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Case: - Document: - Page: 0//0 0 0 0 0 - Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: November, 0 Decided: March, 0) Docket No. --cv LISA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationRandolph v. Green Tree Financial Corp: Does a Failure to Allocate Arbitration Clause Prevent Consumers from Vindicating Their Cause of Action
Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 Article 4 2001 Randolph v. Green Tree Financial Corp: Does a Failure to Allocate Arbitration Clause Prevent Consumers from Vindicating Their Cause of Action
More informationJournal of Dispute Resolution
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2001 Issue 1 Article 10 2001 Mandatory Arbitration of an Employee's Statutory Rights: Still a Controversial Issue or Are We Beating the Proverbial Dead Horse - Penn
More informationMorris v. Ernst & Young, LLP: The NLRA's Phantom Conflict with the FAA
Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law Volume 38 Issue 2 Article 4 7-1-2017 Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP: The NLRA's Phantom Conflict with the FAA Adam Koshkin Kiet Lam Follow this and additional works
More informationCase: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302
Case: 4:15-cv-01361-JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15-cv-01361-JAR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:12-cv-00269-MJD-FLN Document 10 Filed 02/28/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA R.J. ZAYED, in his capacity as court ) appointed receiver for the Estates of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION. ROSALINO PEREZ-BENITES, et al. PLAINTIFFS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION ROSALINO PEREZ-BENITES, et al. PLAINTIFFS VS. CASE NO. 07-CV-1048 CANDY BRAND, LLC, et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Diskriter, Inc. v. Alecto Healthcare Services Ohio Valley LLC et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA DISKRITER, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Snyder v. CACH, LLC Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII MARIA SNYDER, vs. Plaintiff, CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-351 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, ET AL., v. HARTWELL HARRIS, Petitioners, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationThe Supreme Court Opens the Door to Mandatory Arbitration of Discrimination Claims for Union Members
A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: April 2009 On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court in 14 Penn Plaza L.L.C. v. Pyett, held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: March 25, NO. 33,475 5 KIDSKARE, P.C.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: March 25, 2015 4 NO. 33,475 5 KIDSKARE, P.C., 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 TYLER MANN, 9 Defendant-Appellant. 10 APPEAL
More informationCase 5:15-cv L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-00241-L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 JOHN R. SHOTTON, an individual, v. Plaintiff, (2 HOWARD F. PITKIN, in his individual
More informationx : : : : : : : : : x Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------- LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- STERLING JEWELERS, INC., Defendant. -------------------------------------
More informationCase 1:16-cv WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615
Case 1:16-cv-00176-WTL-DLP Document 44 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 615 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. SYSCO INDIANAPOLIS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 12-15981 Date Filed: 10/01/2013 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-15981 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00351-N [DO NOT PUBLISH] PHYLLIS
More informationCase 3:08-cv HA Document 43 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 555
Case 3:08-cv-01178-HA Document 43 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 555 Amy R. Alpera, OSB No. 840244 Email: aalpern@littler.com Neil N. Olsen, OSB No. 053378 Email: nolsen@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON,
More informationCase: 5:17-cv SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:17-cv-01695-SL Doc #: 22 Filed: 12/01/17 1 of 9. PageID #: 1107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BOUNTY MINERALS, LLC, CASE NO. 5:17cv1695 PLAINTIFF, JUDGE
More informationIntroduction. The Nature of the Dispute
Featured Article Expanding the Reach of Arbitration Agreements: A Pennsylvania Federal Court Opinion Applies Principles of Agency and Contract Law to Require a Subsidiary-Reinsurer to Arbitrate Under Parent
More informationCase 2:12-cv GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-02526-GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUE VALERI, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. : : MYSTIC INDUSTRIES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO: 8:12-cv-251-T-26TGW O R D E R
Case 8:12-cv-00251-RAL-TGW Document 26 Filed 05/18/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 203 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUCIANA DE OLIVEIRA, on behalf of herself and ose similarly
More informationDoes Title VII Preclude Enforcement of Compulsory Arbitration Agreements - The Ninth Circuit Says Yes - Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & (and) Co.
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1999 Issue 1 Article 8 1999 Does Title VII Preclude Enforcement of Compulsory Arbitration Agreements - The Ninth Circuit Says Yes - Duffield v. Robertson Stephens &
More informationCase 1:10-cv AJ Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2011 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:10-cv-24089-AJ Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 KAUSTUBH BADKAR, vs. Plaintiff NCL (BAHAMAS LTD., Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
More informationCase 0:12-cv WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-61322-WPD Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GEOVANY QUIROZ, CASE NO. 12-61322-CIV-DIMITROULEAS Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:11-cv JMS-DKL Document 97 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 698
Case 1:11-cv-01431-JMS-DKL Document 97 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 698 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOSHUA D. JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-20556 Document: 00514715129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CARLOS FERRARI, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationCase 1:16-cv ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 438
Case 116-cv-01185-ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID # 438 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION. No. 4:15-CV-103-FL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:15-CV-103-FL CARL E. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.; BLUE ARBOR, INC.; and TESI SCREENING,
More informationSOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY
SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY Southern Glazer s Arbitration Policy July - 2016 SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY A. STATEMENT
More informationStatutory Claims under ERISA: Is Arbitration the Appropriate Forum
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1991 Issue 1 Article 13 1991 Statutory Claims under ERISA: Is Arbitration the Appropriate Forum Amy L. Brice Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr
More informationArbitration of Employment Disputes: Can It Be Required?
Arbitration of Employment Disputes: Can It Be Required? Steven H. Adelman Lord, Bissell & Brook 115 South LaSalle Street Suite 3300 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/443-0405 sadelman@lordbissell.com June 2002
More informationCase 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059
More informationJohnson v. NBC Universal Inc
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-30-2010 Johnson v. NBC Universal Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-1913 Follow
More informationCase 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:06-cv-02319-JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : TRENTON METROPOLITAN AREA : LOCAL OF THE AMERICAN
More informationCase 4:17-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 04/13/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-01044 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 04/13/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:17-cv-00411-R Document 17 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OPTIMUM LABORATORY ) SERVICES LLC, an Oklahoma ) limited liability
More informationCase: 1:15-cv SSB-KLL Doc #: 53 Filed: 05/25/16 Page: 1 of 15 PAGEID #: 411 : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-00720-SSB-KLL Doc # 53 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 15 PAGEID # 411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Robert B. Colley, on behalf of himself and all similarly
More informationCase 1:08-cv LW Document 79 Filed 09/08/09 Page 1 of 9. : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff,
Case 108-cv-02972-LW Document 79 Filed 09/08/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN JACKSON,
More information